S03.E20: Decline Of Newspapers In The United States

[Athena]

Quote

Main segment: Decline of newspapers in the United States
Segments: 2016 Summer Olympics opening ceremony

 

[Delwyn]

First!!!!1!!

But in all seriousness, do we think that Groot found the opening ceremony too sexually explicit?

[Jamoche]

Tweets are the new flair.

[Primetimer]

Where can we see the report on that raccoon cat, though.

View the full article

[cattykit]

The decline in journalism is not news (get it?), but it's still incredibly depressing, especially those of us who came of age in the days of Watergate.  Love seeing guys like Bobby Cannavale and Jason Sudeikis doing these skits for John.

What, a week without Drumpf?  I guess at this point it must have felt like shooting fish in a barrel, and he'll surely have so many more opportunities.

[peeayebee]

It really is depressing how journalism is being starved. I never thought about what David Simon said re corruption growing without good reporters being present at meetings. 

A couple of months ago I signed up for a NYT subscription, then recently I signed up for one with the Washington Post. But I can't buy subscriptions to every newspaper and magazine.

[b2H]

The issue, of course, is money.

When news organizations became profit centers, when the Fairness Doctrine was allowed to expire or to no longer be exercised, these events are when journalism died.

Then there is the quote that, I believe, is attributed to Sinclair Lewis:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

And there, folks, in a nutshell, is what has happened to journalism.  Access is money.  No one is going to trouble the waters if it affects their access.

Edited August 8, 2016 by b2H

[atomationage]

The newspaper story seemed like I had seen it before.   I watched the live feed on YT from The Orlando Sentinel after The Pulse massacre.  I thought the reporters were all excellent, but obviously, they earn nothing from me watching it on YT.   Sam Zell, living garden gnome, saying "fuck you" was a great moment.   When I lived in Florida, we always referred to the newspaper as The Sentinel-Star, even though the name had been changed years before. 

28 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I never thought about what David Simon said re corruption growing without good reporters being present at meetings. 

The same people go to council meetings all the time where I live.

Olympics, mostly boring except for the Syrian girl swimmer.

Edited August 8, 2016 by atomationage

[trow125]

People were already talking about the decline of journalism back in the pre-Internet era. I remember in the mid-1990s (yes, the Web existed, but it was certainly not mainstream) when the Baltimore Evening Sun ceased publishing. The Baltimore News-American went out of business a few years before the Evening Sun did. Back then, afternoon & evening TV news shows got most of the blame.

The trend in journalism seems to be toward nonprofit news outlets like the Texas Tribune and the Center for Investigative Reporting. There's an obvious danger in being beholden to your funders, but it's not like the old advertising driven model didn't have its problems. There were always plenty of anecdotes about big advertisers pulling their ads from certain papers because they were unhappy with critical stories.

[fastiller]

1 hour ago, peeayebee said:

It really is depressing how journalism is being starved. I never thought about what David Simon said re corruption growing without good reporters being present at meetings. 

A couple of months ago I signed up for a NYT subscription, then recently I signed up for one with the Washington Post. But I can't buy subscriptions to every newspaper and magazine.

I get the NYT delivered on Sat & Sun every week.  That allows me access to their website.  I would also have the weekday paper delivered, but I can't read through it all and it would be a waste of a printed paper.  I'd love it if I could subscribe to the paper and have the M-F prints get sent to a local high school or library.

[trow125]

I was interviewed by ‘Last Week Tonight.’ Here’s why the show is journalism

Quote

 

I spoke to "Last Week Tonight" researcher Laura Griffin for more than an hour in late April as work began on the piece and twice again on Saturday when she was doing last-minute fact-checking as the final version of the script got tweaked.

The experience gives me a fresh take on an old question: Are Oliver's show and his alma mater, "The Daily Show," products of journalism — or something else entirely?

I say you betcha it's journalism — deeply reported and meticulously checked but presented in a highly imaginative storytelling form...

 

[sadiegirl]

Trow 125, don't know why but I always thought you were female.  Maybe it's the drink?   Anyway, I'm jealous.  You were part of a pretty impressive show/topic.  And as someone who loves newspapers, the episode made me sad.

[SpiritSong]

8 hours ago, peeayebee said:

It really is depressing how journalism is being starved. I never thought about what David Simon said re corruption growing without good reporters being present at meetings. 

 

The really depressing thing is how the NY Times no longer practices journalism. They have lost all credibility. No matter how you feel about Bernie Sanders, the Times actually published a fact based article about him, then changed it to make it more negative, including inserting editorial opinion, without ever notifying their readers that they had done so, or why. When called on it (see Matt Taibbi's excellent piece in Rolling Stone) they offered nothing but transparently weak excuses. And of course there was the whole big cheering on of the Iraq war they engaged in.

So, no, I don't feel at all bad about reading their content for free. As I told them in a letter in response to their continually begging me to resubscribe, when they start practicing journalism again, I'll start paying them again. I'm not using my hard earned money to read corporate spin or outright propaganda. I do subscribe to other news outlets so I am not against paying; I just want to pay for quality.

[trow125]

5 hours ago, sadiegirl said:

Trow 125, don't know why but I always thought you were female.  Maybe it's the drink?   Anyway, I'm jealous.  You were part of a pretty impressive show/topic.  And as someone who loves newspapers, the episode made me sad.

Oops -- I am indeed female, and I wasn't the person interviewed -- I just copied & pasted the Poynter.org headline and added a link to the article. For the record, I had nothing to do with this or any episode of "LWT," unless you count my applause in the background the one time I was in the audience...!

SpiritSong, you may want to consider supporting the Guardian.

Edited August 9, 2016 by trow125

[sadiegirl]

3 hours ago, trow125 said:

Oops -- I am indeed female, and I wasn't the person interviewed -- I just copied & pasted the Poynter.org headline and added a link to the article. For the record, I had nothing to do with this or any episode of "LWT," unless you count my applause in the background the one time I was in the audience...!

SpiritSong, you may want to consider supporting the Guardian.

Now that I look at it, it's clear you were just linking.  I've been a bit under the weather, so I'm going to use that as my excuse for being a bit dense :-)

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Television show “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” filmed at the Brooklyn Paper’s Downtown office recently, using it as a set for a newsroom sketch starring Jason Sudeikis, Bobby Cannavale, and Rose Byrne that aired on Sunday night.

The Home Box Office show’s honchos looked at several other newsrooms around the city, according to the man who pulled the office out of obscurity and made it a star, but only one had the look of an authentic newspaper bullpen, worn in by hard-nosed reporters through decades of shoe-leather journalism and speaking truth to power. (Also, it’s pretty large, which is what the producers really needed).

 

Quote

 

You won’t catch any actual Brooklyn Paper reporters in the clip — they were all sent home for the day in favor of more attractive actors — but fans of the office’s early, indie work may recognize cameos by the vending machine, desk decorations, and that phone-speaker conference-call doohickey in the meeting room.

Caribbean Life editor Kevin Williams’s desk also gave a breakout performance in its debut role as Cannavale’s workspace.

 

Brooklyn Paper office stars on ‘John Oliver’ show

[Jersey Guy 87]

I have a digital subscription to the New York Times because I don't want the actual newspaper cluttering up my house and needing recycling, etc.  It would actually be cheaper for me to have a weekend-only NYT subscription but I'm willing to pay for the convenience of not having to deal with the physical paper.  I'm willing to pay for quality reporting and I'm not adverse to paying for content on the web if the quality of the content is high.

[peeayebee]

I used to just get by on the 10 free articles per month, but then I found there was a lot more I wanted to read. I'm like many other people where I expect things to be free to read on the internet, so it takes a bit of adjusting to understand that there's actually a price to free stuff.

[fastiller]

1 hour ago, Jersey Guy 87 said:

I have a digital subscription to the New York Times because I don't want the actual newspaper cluttering up my house and needing recycling, etc.  It would actually be cheaper for me to have a weekend-only NYT subscription but I'm willing to pay for the convenience of not having to deal with the physical paper.  I'm willing to pay for quality reporting and I'm not adverse to paying for content on the web if the quality of the content is high.

That's precisely why I just do the weekend delivery.  (I do enjoy the physical paper, especially for the puzzles.  Also, my cat 'helps' me read the paper.)

[ALenore]

Science fiction author (and astrophysicist) David Brin has been pushing the idea of newspapers setting up to accept micro-payments for peopled to read their articles.  They might charge 5 or 10 cents per article, rather than commit to the hassle of a monthly or yearly subscription.  

Quote

 

Examine this truism — that you would never pay a nickel for a New York Times article that you enjoyed. What? Ten minutes of your time isn’t worth five cents? What aggravates users about current pay-for-use methods is not cost, but hassle of transaction. Going through rituals to become a paywall subscriber, then having to sign in each time you return? That’s the deal-breaker.

This isn’t about customer cheapskate-stinginess — it is businesses failing to provide shopping convenience for low-cost transactions.

 

Quote

What journalism — and many other kinds of content-creators — need is a simple, direct way for readers or viewers to pay or reward originators directlyfor any particular five or ten minute experience that they appreciate, without hampering the surfing flow. A method that leaves every decision up to the user, including the right to say “that wasn’t worth it, after all.”

I think this might work.  I get the weekend print edition New York Times and the digital access that comes with it, but I certainly wouldn't mind spending 5 or 10 cents to read articles in the Washington Post, the LA Times, or other newspapers.  

[atomationage]

In the non newspaper part of the show, I was glad that JO commented on the WTF-ery that is Giselle Bundchen.  When I first saw that clip of her walking across that huge stage, I thought she was just walking on a treadmill. and wouldn't get to the other end. 

In Chicago, the Drumpf Tower sits on the former site of the Sun Times-Daily News building.  It was a relatively new building, but was torn down to make room for Drumpf.  The Daily News was an evening newspaper that went out of business years ago.   The Sun Times still exists, mostly for sports coverage and their columnists, who are widely read.  (Roger Ebert was one). 

When Zell took over the Tribune, there was a big reaction, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Zell

Quote

In January 2008, Zell bought a controlling share in the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, among other newspapers. His decision to put Randy Michaels in charge was one of several moves that were sharply criticized by the employees. Besides creating a hostile workplace, Michaels laid off several employees while giving large bonuses to the executives. Less than a year after Mr. Zell bought the company, it tipped into bankruptcy, listing $7.6 billion in assets against a debt of $13 billion, making it the largest bankruptcy in the history of the American media industry. More than 4,200 people have lost jobs since the purchase, while resources for the Tribune newspapers and television stations have been slashed.

and

Quote

In 2008, Zell announced a plan to place the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field up for sale separately in order to maximize profits. He also announced he would consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field. These announcements were widely unpopular in Chicago and a poll taken by the Chicago Sun-Times showed that 53% of 2,000 people who voted said they would no longer attend Cubs games if the field were renamed.

The Ricketts family of billionaires bought the Cubs and Wrigley Field

Edited August 9, 2016 by atomationage

[Danny Franks]

This was an incredibly important episode, in my view. The decline of newspapers (and the corresponding decline in quality of their content) is a sad and concerning issue for all of us. 

As John pointed out, journalists have been integral in uncovering countless crimes, lies, plots and scandals. They have been invaluable to the justice systems of every country, they have kept politicians and other authority figures honest. To know what sort of society you might be living in without that, just look at countries that don't allow freedom of the press. Look at how people can be misled, lied to and indoctrinated by biased journalism and media, and think about how easy it would be to do this when there is no balance from outlets that offer a counter view.

The Independent stopped publishing its full print edition in the UK last year, and it was a sad event. A very good, liberal minded and socially conscious newspaper, that never stooped to sensationalism or cheap headlines, and sadly it was making no money. The abbreviated 'I' edition is still printed, and the website still exists, but it feels like only a matter of time before it all stops. The Guardian is struggling financially too. They've broken some of the biggest stories around the world in recent years, and yet their circulation is not enough to turn even a small profit. 

We're all too happy to just read stuff online, and even then, a lot of us do little more than read headlines or tweets about headlines. The cheap, tawdry tabloids are the ones still making money, which says too much about the general populace for my liking.

[romantic idiot]

So I do think what we are seeing is the trial and error of various business models as we'll move from newspapers to online/digital news. Will it be pay per article, will it be higher costs for ads, more "paid" stories - this history is being written as we speak - I did think JO didn't cover that - and to be fair he wanted it to be more doom and gloom, maybe. And it's not just newspapers - the same thing's happening in the television, publishing and music industry - where the old business model doesn't work anymore but there is no clear winner for the new one. 

So like the doping in Athletics article, for me this was more of a miss. I also feel that he felt the same, because of the lack of a clear call to action here. Normally when covering stories, if feels like there's a message and some action / move that people can make to improve things. But not so much for this one - except for subscribing for newspapers I guess, which again, didn't come out. 

[charlieboo]

Quote

I'd love it if I could subscribe to the paper and have the M-F prints get sent to a local high school or library.

fastiller, if you have a subscription and need to stop it for a few days, they do have an option to donate those days to a school. So I'm sure you could set up a M-F permanent donation and they'd love you for it.

[SpiritSong]

15 hours ago, trow125 said:

SpiritSong, you may want to consider supporting the Guardian.

Thanks. I do sometimes read the U.K. edition online; I'll have to check out getting a subscription.

6 hours ago, ALenore said:

Science fiction author (and astrophysicist) David Brin has been pushing the idea of newspapers setting up to accept micro-payments for peopled to read their articles.  They might charge 5 or 10 cents per article, rather than commit to the hassle of a monthly or yearly subscription.

I think that would be a fantastic way to go. It's kind of like cable/satellite companies that make you buy 200 channels to get the dozen or so you actually watch. I would pay a wide variety of newspapers and magazines to read by the article.

8 hours ago, peeayebee said:

 

I used to just get by on the 10 free articles per month, but then I found there was a lot more I wanted to read. I'm like many other people where I expect things to be free to read on the internet, so it takes a bit of adjusting to understand that there's actually a price to free stuff.

 

It's way too easy to get around those limits they set on free articles. Just clear your browser history and read as much as you like.

I wish John had mentioned that 90% of all media outlets in this country are owned by just six corporations. I realize all companies need to make money to survive, but there has been a definite blurring of line, if not outright erasing it, when it comes to journalistic integrity vs. keeping the owners happy. He touched on it with the Las Vegas paper bought by Sheldon Adelson. If you can't trust what you're reading to be honest and ethical, eventually no one will spend any money to get their news.

[Kel Varnsen]

The newspaper story was interesting but it kind of seemed like for the papers their decline is kind of going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example we just cancelled home delivery of our local paper. The reason we cancelled it was because over the past couple of years the paper has gotten shittier and shittier. They just stopped printing a Sunday paper and didn't cut the subscription cost. Plus it seemed like a lot of the sections and stuff I liked was regularly getting cut. They used to have a full Saturday travel section, and then it became part of another section. The comics page became smaller and smaller and more and more stories were just taken from wire services. So it seems like revenue is down so they make cuts. But then the cuts make the paper crappier so they lose subscribers and revenue drops further.

[stillshimpy]

I'm familiar with the pay-per-read model being put forth as a good and hopefully likely solution.  

So like the doping in Athletics article, for me this was more of a miss. I also feel that he felt the same, because of the lack of a clear call to action here. Normally when covering stories, if feels like there's a message and some action / move that people can make to improve things. But not so much for this one - except for subscribing for newspapers I guess, which again, didn't come out.

Yeah, I'm right there with you.  Whereas this is an important issue, it's far from a fresh one or something people seemed to be in the dark about.  Season five of The Wire (oddly enough, not one of the better-written plots of the series) dealt with exactly this issue...in 2008.  It felt a wee bit stale to anyone who had already seen Shattered Glass (2003) .  

I'm torn between the fact that even if it is last decade's news (Extra! Extra!  The Death of Print Media is Imminent! And apparently lingering!) and the fact that it is such an important issue.  Even having David Simon on, who again dedicated much of a season of The Wire to this problem nearly 10 years ago, gave me a weird feeling of déjà vu.  

If it didn't feel like LWT was specifically avoiding talking about the political horror show that continues week-after-week -- and truly, I can't blame them for this choice, it's either that or try to refresh the outrage weekly because it's not like this landscape of lunacy is changing much -- as it was, perhaps I wouldn't have felt like this was really stretching to find ways to avoid it.  

It was a good piece because it is an important issue, but I was genuinely surprised that it didn't really take the point anywhere fresh.  

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

“Strangest email I’ve gotten today: ‘our Legal department has advised me we are not allowed to pass along story ideas to LWT and John Oliver.'” — BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith.

Afternoon Mirror

[cattykit]

Applause for the journalism segment from the Washington Post

Quote

Except that HBO’s John Oliver beat me to it with the best defense of newspapers — ever. His recent “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver” monologue about the suffering newspaper industry has gone viral in journalism circles but deserves a broader audience.

Besides, it’s funny.

 

12 hours ago, ALenore said:

Science fiction author (and astrophysicist) David Brin has been pushing the idea of newspapers setting up to accept micro-payments for peopled to read their articles.  They might charge 5 or 10 cents per article, rather than commit to the hassle of a monthly or yearly subscription.  

I wouldn't like that at all.  I'd read something crappy and want my money back.  I could easily see a pay-per-view option as leading to even more, and more outrageous, clickbait headlines designed to grab instant cash than we see now.

[Jersey Guy 87]

15 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

It's way too easy to get around those limits they set on free articles. Just clear your browser history and read as much as you like.

 

Which is one of the reasons revenue is down in the conversion to digital.  I go into Penn Station (New York City) every day for work.  There are still people on the train reading the daily paper.  There are also people at Penn Station who pride themselves on being able to assemble a full New York Times or Wall Street Journal by grabbing the sections out of the trash.  Unlike clearing your browser history (and other tricks people use to get around free article limits) pulling papers out of the garbage makes you look kind of sketchy so most people don't do it.

While the idea that print newspapers are in decline isn't new I thought it was good of John to point out how much investigative journalism used to happen, especially at the local level.  There are still places that do investigative journalism but it's likely that your local town committee meetings and the like aren't being covered the same way anymore.

[peeayebee]

17 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

It's way too easy to get around those limits they set on free articles. Just clear your browser history and read as much as you like.

I didn't know that. I guess I'm glad because otherwise I might not have bought subscriptions.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

In fact, it may take a comedian to emphasize the point that is right in front of us: The decades-long subsidy of high-priced print advertising is all but over. It is now readers who must pay to keep informed. This isn’t a new notion at all — it’s one that has most eagerly seized by national and global newspaper companies, like The New York Times and the Financial Times.

All have crossed over — they receive more than half of their revenue from us, the readers. Reader revenue is helping each of them build a sustainable digital future. None is there yet, but they’re far closer to getting there than the local press, where readers pay only about 30 percent of the expenses.

 

Quote

 

In fact, most regional publishers — the few independent publishers I’ve highlighted over the years offer the primary exceptions — have failed to apply what the Times and FT have learned. It’s true that the Times is national, and now global. Consequently, it can draw upon a large universe of potential digital subscribers. That scale, though, isn’t the only answer of why reader revenue works so well for some companies but not for the vast majority. In fact, my research shows that the Times and FT convert their audiences to paying customers at a rate of about five times better than do regional papers. So it’s not just size of audience — it’s also what you do for the audience.

Chalk up two reasons for the the Times and FT success. Both provide more value to their readers — and both are smarter about how they charge. They haven’t simply erected a paywall and put most of their content behind it. Most essentially, both still publish enough daily original reporting to maintain daily habits for subscribers. That’s the journalism that should be at the root of the journalism business. Both publications have seen cutbacks, but both maintain robust, experienced, and increasingly innovative newsrooms.

Compare that to the ungodly decline in numbers, knowledge, and know-how in so many regional newsrooms across the country. For most daily publishers, the business logic is counterintuitive — cut the news staff in half and charge twice as much for the remaining output — and consumers have responded understandably by walking away.

 

Quote

 

In March, I highlighted the Times’ smartphone product — I believed it finally offered a copyable future for the press. My almost-eternal optimism has been dinged a bit since; I’ve seen practically no borrowing of the many good ideas the Times presents every day. How could that be? In a world so desperate for new funding — for reader revenue — how can an industry shrug its shoulders at such a compelling model of mobile engagement and proven subscription payoff?

It’s not just content and its presentation that form the building blocks of the majority-reader-revenue era we need to enter. Paywall technology providers tell me they are puzzled by how slowly publishers have been to test new niche payment schemes, potential new products, and personalization. It is an industry focused on milking short-term profits at the expense of long-term business success — and civic service.

 

Newsonomics: After John Oliver, the you-get-what-you-pay-for imperative has never been clearer
 

Quote

 

The idea of winning a Vermont weekly through an essay contest drew a lot of entries, "good entries," editor and publisher Ross Connelly told readers in Wednesday's Hardwick Gazette.

But not quite enough.

So Connelly is extending the deadline by 40 days in hopes of reaching the 700 entrants required to begin judging (he declined to say how many essays he's received so far).

 

Quote

 

So far, he's gotten essays from across the United States, plus one from Australia, one from Italy and one from Japan. If the contest doesn't reach 700 entries by the deadline, he plans to include a note of thanks with the checks he'll return, Connelly said, and make sure the people interested know they can still buy the paper.

On Tuesday, he shared a piece about John Oliver's viral defense of local journalism along with a reminder about the contest on Facebook.

Connelly hasn't yet had time to watch the whole thing because he was on deadline Monday and Tuesday for Wednesday's edition. He's looking forward to watching it today. And he's happy that in a busy digital world, the essays he's received show that people understand serious journalism still deserves a serious local home.

 

You can still win that Vermont newspaper in an essay contest

Edited August 11, 2016 by OneWhoLurks

[Hanahope]

I stopped getting a paper newspaper a couple years ago.  At first, I had it downloaded to my kindle, but found that I generally only got about 65% of the articles, many times articles would be duplicated over a couple of days, and at least once a month I'd get no download at all.  Then I found out my paper provided a digital subscription, that I could read the entire paper on my ipad, and it was even cheaper than the partial version I got on the kindle.  I liked that a lot better because I could see the whole thing, I didn't get some parts I liked with the kindle version.

The only 'downside' to not having an actual newspaper was that there were times my kids came home from school (elementary) with class assignments involving a newspaper.  I'd have to go out and buy one.  Maybe more schools should do that, keep people buying newspapers, lol.

But I do see that online versions of story are so copy cat.  Just today I was trying to find some fact to support a relative's claim about something she'd read online.  I found numerous "stories" online about the claim my relative made and virtually all of them were copies of the exact same story, nearly word for word, although from different "news" outlets.  Everyone just repeats the same thing, its quantity over quality.

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Despite his protests to the contrary last Sunday night, comedian John Oliver is doing real journalism. Ironically, his statement that “The media is a food chain which would fall apart without local newspapers” preceded a devastating, thoroughgoing report on the plight of a business model (the Globe’s conspicuously included) that’s dependent on an audience used to getting its news for free. It says something about our historical moment, though, that we can find more useful analysis in purported comedy shows about news than in many news shows themselves.

Oliver’s report on journalism — full of data points, archival interviews, and original research — was in itself an example of how “fake news” (as Jon Stewart used to call it) has become real. “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” was a way to catch up on the day’s headlines, the civic outrages one had missed or only heard about. Most edifying were Stewart’s montages of slippery politicians’ conflicting expedient views through the years. Stewart didn’t invent that kind of on-the-fly TV history lesson, but he certainly made it standard. Stewart was pushing a point of view, sure, but give him credit: In journalism, combing the public record for evidence is called “reporting.”

 

How ‘fake news’ got real
 

Quote

 

The story will land just as some in the media are buzzing about John Oliver's 19-minute segment on newspapers. Did you catch it? Some saw it as a love letter to journalism – noting the essential and important role newspapers still play in society. Others fixated on all the fun the piece poked at news organizations, including ours.

I laughed out loud more than once. And I wanted to bite down on the wooden handle of a kitchen spatula. Also more than once.

Oliver's premise is that it's harder than ever to produce in-depth investigative journalism. True enough. But in our newsroom, we recognize that it's absolutely essential. It's the reason our investigative team is as large today as it was 15 years ago, even as the newsroom staff has gotten much leaner.

 

Quote

As the largest news organization in Oregon, we have a strong obligation to provide the best enterprise coverage in our great big back yard. And we take that responsibility seriously.

Special watchdog report to land on anniversary of catastrophic fire (Editors Notebook)

Edited August 12, 2016 by OneWhoLurks

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

Newspaper Association of American president and CEO David Chavern was not amused, and in an August 8 statement he pushed back hard: “Making fun of experiments and pining away for days when classified ads and near-monopolistic positions in local ad markets funded journalism is pointless and ultimately harmful,” he wrote. “I would just ask Mr. Oliver to spend more time talking about what the future of news could be, and less time poking fun at publishers who are trying to get there.”

Quote

 

Josh Horwitz at Quartz gathered a variety of responses from among the newspapers the NAA serves, including one from Washington Post editor in chief Marty Baron tweeting that Chavern’s statement “could not be more clueless.” Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan prescribed a sense of humor and an ability to take criticism in stride: “When someone hilariously and poignantly celebrates the industry that you are paid to defend and protect, you ought to laugh at the funny parts and then simply say ‘thank you.’ Or maybe nothing at all.”

Chavern, as Sullivan points out, is a newcomer to the newspaper business: He arrived to NAA from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last fall. That’s not a flaw: As we discussed at the time of his hiring, Chavern is just the latest example of a longstanding debate over whether industry-specific experience matters more than general leadership experience. And he responded to the criticism with poise, telling journalism nonprofit Poynter that “the only thing I was trying to get at was, when you get into talking about companies that are trying new things, like Tronc and The Washington Post, if you don’t get across that they’re experimenting, you fall into the trap of saying, ‘well, weren’t the good old days great?'”

 

Quote

 

Chavern wasn’t just talking about Oliver’s failure to stress that Tronc’s efforts are an experiment. He was thrusting the burden of devising a fix onto Oliver’s shoulders: “He doesn’t offer any answers,” Chavern wrote. “John Oliver doesn’t seem to have any better ideas.” Every association is different, but one common thread is that their leaders ought not get into the business of complaining that their critics ought to come up with better ideas for improving your industry.

Because that’s your job. Coming up with better ideas is what you’re coming to the office to do. It’s what drives your board meetings. It’s what motivates your staff. It’s what’s behind everything you devise to serve your members and customers.

It’s not particularly important whether you, as the head of an association, have a sense of humor or not. But how you respond still matters—you can either demand more of your critics, which is a losing battle, or you can point the public to the work you’re doing that sets you above what your critics say. Failing to do so represented a missed opportunity for NAA.

 

Why One Association's PR Defense Stumbled

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

Just look at what happened last week after that Goliath of the digital transformation, Facebook, pared back the team of “curators” and copy editors who oversaw the selection process for its “Trending Topics” feed. Instead, it gave more control over to an algorithm.

With less meddling from discerning humans, the algorithm promoted a news item about a man engaging sexually with a McChicken Sandwich, and it picked up a false report that Fox News was dropping its star anchor, Megyn Kelly, because she had come out in support of Hillary Clinton. She had done no such thing.

The Facebook program picked up the bogus story and the McChicken item because they were generating copious clicks on the internet — thus, they were “trending.”

 

Quote

 

The Facebook experience wasn’t all that far off from the doomsday scenario John Oliver recently envisioned on his HBO show “Last Week Tonight.”

In a spoof version of the movie “Spotlight,” about the Boston Globe reporters who uncovered widespread sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, Mr. Oliver envisioned a “multiplatform content generation distribution network” — formerly a “newspaper” — that puts off a City Hall corruption blockbuster in lieu of a potentially more popular item about a creature that looks like both a raccoon and a cat — a “Rac-Cat.”

 

Quote

 

Mr. Chavern criticized Mr. Oliver on his group’s website for being overly pessimistic, and in doing so hit an off note, as Margaret Sullivan wrote in The Washington Post. Mr. Chavern was somewhat sheepish about it when we spoke, saying, “I’m a passionate defender of publishers.” But he acknowledged that his statement could have been more thoughtful and he appreciated that Mr. Oliver was presenting a defense of newspapers.

Today’s industry thinking goes that the modern newspaper — er, news company formerly known as a newspaper — can do both “Rac-Cat” and the big City Hall corruption story. That is, it can maintain its public service mission while also providing higher-traffic bits that “pop” online. But it will most likely have to do so with fewer resources and a smaller classically trained reporting staff. That means letting some stories go uncovered, which at best can mean skipping stories about nonlethal fires in pursuit of the bigger fish — and at worst can mean eliminating the full-time City Hall reporter.

 

Yes, the News Can Survive the Newspaper

[cattykit]

Since I saw this segment, I've been more attuned to networks attributing their news items to newspapers.  Of course now, you also see news networks liberally borrowing from other networks.  Back in the day you would never see anything CBS had done on NBC, and they barely acknowledged that the other existed.  It was a big deal just to see a sports clip from another network during their sports segments, with a tiny "courtesy of" in the corner.  Now everybody just uses everyone else's work, unedited.  It's kind of a joke that CNN touted Anderson Cooper's "exclusive" interview with Drumpf, when every news organization ran wholesale segments from it in their news and commentary shows and didn't try to hide that it was AC or CNN.

Edited September 5, 2016 by cattykit

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

The Richmond Standard, an online paper focused on local news for the roughly 100,000 residents of this San Francisco Bay area city (neighboring Berkeley and Oakland), is produced entirely by Chevron's public relations firm.

The Standard mostly prints local-interest stories: announcing library construction, highlighting missing persons, and profiling area businesses.

But unlike a traditional newspaper, the Standard also runs a dedicated section called “Chevron Speaks” — used to introduce friendly Chevron reps, attack investigative reporting projects, and talk electoral politics. And unlike other media outlets, the Standard consistently lacks mention of industrial accidents and problems at the refinery. 

 

Quote

 

At the Red State Gathering, Chevron's Standard drew praise and admiration from another high-powered PR executive who represents one of the most politically influential conservative companies in the U.S., Koch Industries.

“I think there's a balance, reacting to the right things but also telling our story more, and you just got to be more proactive,” said Steve Lombardo, chief communications and marketing officer for Koch Industries, who sat on the same panel as Chevron's Crinklaw.

“I applaud you for that idea in Richmond, because that's what we need more of,” Lombardo added.

 

Chevron PR Firm's Local "News" Site Draws Attention from Koch Industries, Alarm from Media Watchdogs

[OneWhoLurks]

Quote

 

I think that he’s challenged our language. He will have changed journalism, he really will have. I was either editor or managing editor of the L.A. Times during the Swift Boat incident. Newspapers did not know — we did not quite know how to do it. I remember struggling with the reporter, Jim Rainey, who covers the media now, trying to get him to write the paragraph that laid out why the Swift Boat allegation was false…We didn’t know how to write the paragraph that said, “This is just false.”

Doctor: We struggle with that.

Baquet: We struggle with that. I think that Trump has ended that struggle. I think we now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.

 

Quote

 

Baquet: The dirty secret of news organizations — and I think this is part of a story of what happened with Bush and the Iraq war — [is that] newspaper reporters and newspapers describe the world we live in. We really can be a little bit patriotic without knowing it. We actually tend to believe what politicians tell us — which is a flaw, by the way. I’m not saying that with pride. The lesson of the Iraq war, which I think started us down this track, was that I don’t think people really believed that the administration would actually lie about the WMDs, or that they would say the stuff so forcefully.

Who really believed that Colin Powell would get up in front of the United Nations, a guy who was known for integrity? I think that was a shock to the system. Then comes a guy — there’s this great moment in one of the debates where Trump says something…and Megyn Kelly asks him a question and he says: That’s just not true, I never said that. One of our fact-checkers went to his website, and it’s like: No. I think he gave us courage, if you will. I think he made us — forced us, because he does it so often, to get comfortable with saying something is false.

 

Quote

 

Doctor: I’m reminded of the rant John Oliver did a couple of weeks ago. In that, he played, a clip of [former Baltimore Sun reporter and later The Wire creator] David Simon testifying before Congress, saying: It’s a great time to be crooked in America. We know that everyday in New Orleans and every other city, there are things that the city needs. Look at the education problems, the health problems, corruption problems. Newspapers used to take on those problems — haphazardly, very haphazardly, as we know, but they were the only ones that did. Do you think there really is a decline of civic life that you see beyond newspapers? What happened to our sense of local?

Baquet: This is a theory. I think the sense of local started to change before the decline of newspapers. I think it started to change when Americans started moving around. I remember having a conversation with Jim Squires at the Chicago Tribune, who is a smart guy. He said, “You know, you counted on everybody in your city loved the Cubs and loved the Bears. That’s not true anymore. You now have people in your city who left Cleveland and love the Browns and left L.A. and love the Dodgers.” I think that was the beginning. I think that was starting to pull apart even before. I actually think the biggest crisis in journalism is local news.

There’s no way the Times-Picayune, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or the Miami Herald can cover as much government and economics as they could when their staffs were three times bigger. That’s just not possible. I don’t know what the answer to it is.

 

The New York Times’ Dean Baquet on calling out lies, embracing video, and building a more digital newsroom

[biakbiak]

As Fahrenthold is racking up so many stories (so much so that autocorect suggest his name when I type Fah) it reminded me if the importance of this episode.